Why not Modify Shuttle and Re-use it?

[gaetanomarano]

right, but it is due to my english... the phrase refers to the time necessary in order to cover light years... (please suggest me the correct phrase, thank You) <br /><br />the mistake was also due to the fact that, in italian, some say... "la mia auto è anni luce migliore della tua" (my car is light years better than your car" or "io sono anni luce più furbo di te" (I'm light years smarter than you"), etc.<br /><br />"light years" not as time or distance but as "big quantity"<br /><br />(however, I will try to check better the words I use)<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...the life extension is for 4 days..." <br /><br />- probably it was designed to give to Shuttle a few days more in orbit in case of wheater problems before re-entry<br /><br />- if, with 28 tons of max paylod available, NASA is not able to add extra energy to the Shuttle, must leave astronautics and go to gardening...<br /><br />- with a "Space Parking" it is UNNECESSARY to have 15 days or 15+4 or 15+more days because the crewless Shuttle will leave the payload and come back THE SAME DAY<br /><br />"...there have ALWAYS been 4 primary computers and one back up..."<br /><br />ok, 4+1, I will change it next time I update the web page<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...Soyuz can not currently support enough extra seats to put assembly crews up..."<br /><br />Soyuz has three seats, the pilot and two more, so, two Soyuzs can send 4 specialists to ISS, but I count as SIX... <br /><br />...astronauts are intelligent guys with years of experience in aeronautics, astronautics, etc. so, they are perfectly able to learn of to mount ISS modules...<br /><br />the specialists can fly to ISS with two Soyuzs or with ONE manned Shuttle flight every 3, 5 or more crewless flights that leave the payload to the "ISS Space Parking"<br /><br />"...I still want immediate retirement..."<br /><br />but NASA has planned 19 flights, if will be all WITH crew over 130 ASTRONAUTS will risk their life, if great part of them will be CREWLESS the risk will be reduced to 30 lifes<br /><br />all we hope that nothing will happen to the next 19 flights, but two Shuttles have already crashed... so, what we will say if another Shuttle will crash and SEVEN people will die only to send "a box" in orbit???<br /><br />the payload is only "a box", a big, costly, high tech, but nothing else than "a box" and its value is not the same of seven human lifes<br /><br />so, if you (NASA) think to risk so many lifes to send a few "boxes" to ISS, PLEASE STOP SEND THEM IN ORBIT AN CLOSE THE SPACE STATION NOW, Thank You.<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...You claimed that a damaged Orbiter could stay at the ISS to wait for parts to come up on a Soyuz..." (no, Progress)<br /><br />well, I think it is better to do a practical example...<br /><br />in the next years, at Shuttle flight number "x", the seven astronauts go in orbit, dock the space station, work with payloads, etc..<br /><br />some days after, they will inspect the thermal shield and discover that it is TOO damaged to come back to earth live!<br /><br />well, what do You think they must do?<br /><br />a) return IMMEDIATELY to earth to recharge Shuttle batteries (and die), or...<br /><br />b) remain in the ISS all the time necessary to receive extra food, oxigen, energy and repair parts for the Shuttle (with another Shuttle or, safer, with a crewless Progress, as I suggest) before come back...<br /><br />...Your choice...<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

oooh... I've tryed to change the term "recharge" before but your reply was faster...<br /><br />ok, "refuel" (if possible) not "recharge" (or... "help the Shuttle batteries to remain live"), I know that spaceships has fuel batteries (not zinc batteries...)<br /><br />but nothing change in my opinion, a damaged Shuttle MUST remain in orbit, not PREFER to remain...<br /><br />and, a damaged Shuttle MUST be repaired in orbit (if possible) or burned in atmosphere (another way is to wait for some kind of "reusable" cargo-SDLV in 2035... but probably Captain Kirk will arrive before...)<br /><br />since this problem may happen in future missions, I suggest that NASA will send to ISS a "60 days emergency fuel battery" (or a solar panel recharger entirely devoted to that evenience<br /><br />

 

[scottb50]

I haven't seen anything about the LOX/H2 fueling system, but if you can connect to it on the ground you should be able to do the same thing in orbit. Maybe it would be safer to set up a LOX/H2 reserve on the ISS instead of plugging the Shuttle into ISS power for a couple of days. If you had to take up LOX/H2 even progress could carry quite a bit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mcs_seattle]

Shuttle Guy<br /><br />I'm amazed at your patience... ;-) But, then it must take a lot of patience to work for what looks like years and years for a single launch.<br /><br />What is the source of your patience with this thread?<br /><br />

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>well, what do You think they must do?<br /><br />a) return IMMEDIATELY to earth to recharge Shuttle batteries (and die), or...<br /><br />b) remain in the ISS all the time necessary to receive extra food, oxigen, energy and repair parts for the Shuttle (with another Shuttle or, safer, with a crewless Progress, as I suggest) before come back...<br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Or,<br /><br />c) Move onto ISS. Flight controllers in JSC command the damaged Orbiter to undock, move away from the ISS, and then deorbit on a controlled path designed to burn it up and ditch whatever survives reentry in the Pacific. (A disposal trajectory, in other words.) In a pinch, another ocean might be selected, but the Pacific is popular because it is so very big. Meanwhile, a rescue mission is launched with a crew of two. The crew of the first Shuttle mission bide their time on the ISS. The rescue Orbiter docks, they all pile in, and they land normally. Alternately, Congress has authorized an exemption to the Iran Non-Proliferation Act allowing NASA to purchase Soyuz vehicles in such situations, although this would require a minimum of two additional Soyuz and it's questionable whether they could be readied quickly enough. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

NASA must resolve the problem, not I or You<br /><br />but, if NASA plans to connect the Shuttle to ISS to extend the Shuttle life of +4 days, there is (or will be) a "way" to do it<br /><br />so, simply use the same "way" to extend energy life of 30-60 or more days instead of 4, with a "battery" in the ISS or the Shuttle (the Shuttle payload is more than sufficient to add an extra-battery...)<br /><br />better is to keep (also) a Progress ready to launch (with assorted spare parts for Shuttle repair (thermal shield, etc.) in the same days of Shuttle flights<br /><br />however, this is an emergency that may happen in a Shuttle WITH or WITHOUT crew (the "only" difference is that, WITHOUT crew, there are NO risks for astronauts life)<br /><br />in normal flights that problem don't exist, and, with short crewless cargo flights (only to leave ISS "boxes") the Shuttle batteries will be sufficient for two-three flights (but, of course, it is safer to refuel them after each flight...)<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

first questions...<br /><br /><span method="POST" action="/dopoll.php"></span> <br /><br /> <br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />second question (only if You wish that Shuttle fly again)...<br /><br /><span method="POST" action="/dopoll.php"></span> <br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

I think that the main purpose of NASA is NOT to launch rockets but RESOLVE PROBLEMS.<br /><br />When President Kennedy decided to start the lunar program, there was 357,963 little, medium and big problems to solve to accomplish the mission.<br /><br />Rocket, spacesuits, electronics, solid state displays, a pen to write in absence of gravity, the Apollo+LEM that must rotate slowly to don't be continuosly under the sun, the thing to send and don't send in space in the weight possible, the design of the logo of each mission, the right material for thermal shield, the dimension, material and wheight of the US flag for the moon, the best shoes for lunar land, the long sensors under the LEM to control the touch down, the right time to quarantine astronauts before the launch and after they come back, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.<br /><br />Only when NASA has resolved the problem number 357,963 the moon walking happened.<br /><br />Please, search on internet the images of the first Shuttle's cockpit and of the new LCD cockpit, it is a big visible change, but NASA has done thousands of visible and invisible changes to upgrade the Shuttle to latest technology.<br /><br />If NASA will decide that squared main tank is better than a rounded tank, NASA will make the squared tank!<br /><br />It is not important if to-day Shuttle batteries CAN or CAN'T be refueled or recharged. <br /><br />If NASA will decide that is better to have a 60 day fuel battery or solar panel or other things, NASA will make them!<br /><br />If NASA wants a crewless Shuttle, NASA make it (resolving all the problems of batteries, center of gravity, boosters, etc. etc. etc.).<br /><br />If the "problems to solve" to have a crewless Shuttle are 237, NASA will resolve all them, and, after the last problem solved, the crewless Shuttle will fly.<br /><br />After some intersting technical discussions, I have posted two poll with the two main questions because we are not "the people that build the new long-life Shuttle's fuel batter

 

[gaetanomarano]

I'm searching in internet more detailed drawing to see where are located the Shuttle's fuel batteries (do you have a good link?), but, in the mean time...<br /><br />how do you think about locate (if possible and if NASA decide to do it) new long-life fuel batteries in the cargo-bay so they can be changed like in a cellular phone?<br /><br />any time Shuttle will need more energy, the battery can be changed with the robot-arm, and, if necessary, new batteries will be sent with a Progress. so the Shuttle in orbit will have endless energy!<br /><br />With replaceable fuel batteries the Shuttle can remain in orbit for months.<br /><br />Probably, the crewless Shuttle may exceed the 15-day life of to-day batteries because, without crew, the power consumption is less than a Shuttle with crew.<br /><br />however, the battery life is a problem ONLY IN CASE OF EMERGENCY (with or without crew)<br /><br />in normal work the crewless Shuttle need LESS energy...<br /><br />1st because it don't have a crew<br /><br />2nd because it is like a "postman", it will go to the ISS, leave the "mail" (payload) in the "mail box" (the Space Parking) and come back to home the same day!<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

I know, I call "batteries" the fuel-cells (from now I will call "fuel-cells", no "batteries").<br /><br />The fuel cells are much little any day, You know that a big impulse to reduce sizes is made in car industry that try to put fuel-cells in future hydrogen-based cars.<br /><br />In the past, NASA was leading the technology increasing the speed of developing, not use existing (or old) technology to save money.<br /><br />If NASA will invest more in fuel-cells research (like in gold-days) may start from to-day little fuel-cells and give to world industry a new generation of compact, long-life fuel cells to be used in spaceships or in city cars!<br /><br />If NASA wants, NASA can! No doubt!<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

I wish to claim that I'M NOT A "CEV-SDLV ENEMY"!!!<br /><br />I think that it is an interesting program (with many changes...), but FOR THE FUTURE.<br /><br />It is impossible to predict exactly when CEV-SDLV will be really made and if the plans timing will be respected.<br /><br />I only observe that NEVER a complex plan was respected!<br /><br />All space plans was delayed of years (or cancelled!): the first Shuttle flight, the ISS, mars missions probes, the return to moon, the Hubble launch (and repair), etc.<br /><br />So, also the CEV-SDLV program will have some little or big problems and each problem will delay the plan of two day + three week + six months (and the sum will be: "years")<br /><br />The first CEV flight may be in 2013 or in 2011 or in 2016, the first lunar mission may be in 2018 or 2015 or in 2020.<br /><br />We don't know how much time will need, but I think will be MORE not less (and require more money than $104 billion).<br /><br />

 

[scottb50]

You could do the same thing in a closed system. <br /><br />The fluid would mix with the ullage gas in the tanks.... If you use a high pressure accumulator you don't have to worry about ullage gas anyway. <br /><br />On the ground the tanks are loaded slowly and filled until the liquid spills out the tank vents....<br /><br />Obviously in orbit we don't have the luxury of venting, maybe pre-filled tanks that could be plugged in as needed, progress or the European vehicle could carry them up. Until the Station(s) use LOX/LH2, then you upload water and use solar power to break it down, liquify it and store it. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[davp99]

Gee Ge-marano, how do I Vote again ?? <br /><br />....is it No to the First and Yes to the Second or Versa Visa.... <br /><br />Please try, AND Listen to what Shuttle_Guy, most Politely, tells You.... You will Definitely LEARN a few things ...okay <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="4">Dave..</font> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

dear Davp99<br /><br />I think that the life of Shuttle's crews is a VERY SERIOUS ARGUMENT so I DON'T JOKE about it!<br /><br />MANY think that Shuttles WITH crew are TOO DANGERUS and that they must STOP to fly NOW (this is the argument of the first poll).<br /><br />I wish that Shuttles fly again but WITHOUT CREW so, I vote "Yes" to the first poll (I want that Shuttle fly) and "NO" to the second poll (without crew).<br /><br />But, I've a THIRD question for you and for all people that claim Shuttles must still fly 19 times WITH crew:<br /><br />"How do you think Challenger's and Columbia's crews may vote to poll TWO (if they can...)?!?!"<br /><br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...Or, c) Move onto ISS. Flight controllers in JSC command the damaged Orbiter to..."<br /><br /><br />I hope that NASA never apply the option "C" to a multi-billion dollar vehicle if it remain without energy and try to repair it!<br /><br />But the event may happen!<br /><br />This summer the repair of Discovery was done in time to have the energy to come back to earth.<br /><br />But, if Discovery was repairable in FOUR weeks... now it would be under Pacific ocean!<br /><br />The problem exists, Shuttles are aged machines.<br /><br />If it is too late to redesign Shuttle's fuel cells, NASA may double them to extend Shuttle life to 30 days.<br /><br />The three Shuttle's fuel cells are 14 x 15 x 45 inches and weights 260 pounds each.<br /><br />So, the Shuttle's 63,500 pounds payload is enough to carry up to 250 extra-fuel cells... but 3-6 more units are sufficient!<br /><br />(or add extra hydrogen-oxygen tanks to extend the life of the three Shuttle's fuel cells)<br /><br />Do you know if NASA (after Discovery's repair problems) will add some extra fuel cells for the next Shuttle flight?<br /><br /><br />------------------<br /><br />About the crewless Shuttle... save human lifes is only the FIRST (and most important) advantage.<br /><br />The SECOND advantage is that they will fly much more than 19 times (probably, not 200 times in total, for the three Shuttles, but MANY).<br /><br />

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>If NASA will invest more in fuel-cells research (like in gold-days) may start from to-day little fuel-cells and give to world industry a new generation of compact, long-life fuel cells to be used in spaceships or in city cars! <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />The Helios program run by NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center (a very active but often overlooked NASA center) was intending to drive development of self-regenerating fuel cells. These would be capable of taking a current and using it to split their own wastewater back into oxygen and hydrogen. The idea was to use these to replace conventional batteries to provide sufficient power to keep the Helios UAV aloft through the night. During the day, it would use solar power, with excess power being used to split hydrogen and oxygen in the regenerating fuel cells. Alas, the Helios prototype crashed off the coast of Hawaii, and I have heard nothing of the program since then. I don't know whether the fuel cell development continued, in the absence of its intended testbed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[scottb50]

Storage would be a problem and an accumulator would allow a lot of flexibility. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"I think that the life of Shuttle's crews is a VERY SERIOUS ARGUMENT so I DON'T JOKE about it!</font><br /><br />You're right. It <i>is</i> very serious. You're also being a bit extreme. <br /><br />I'm not opposed to the crewless Orbiter idea, but nobody's forcing anyone to fly on them. As has been said many times here, there will <i>always</i> be risk associated with human spaceflight.<br /><br />Now, if the astronauts refused to ride STS then I might agree with you, but until that happens I prefer to let them make the decision to fly or not. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...nobody's forcing anyone to fly on them..."<br /><br />true, but... there was someone that assured the Challenger maintenance was OK to send in orbit a crew with a young teacher... and someone else that assured to Columbia's crew that Shuttle was OK to reentry live on earth... <br /><br />risks associated with spaceflights are accettable (and accepted) if they are not so much (or so stupid, like fly WITH crew on a machine that crash 2 times every 100 flights... imagine that fail margin with airline flights!)<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...development of self-regenerating fuel cells..."<br /><br /><br />it is a great idea that may be also used (in future) to extend Shuttle's fuel cells life (with a dedicated solar panel that may remain near the ISS)<br /><br />if that technology will be available in future at a low cost we will re-fuel our city car with a solar panel on house top!<br /><br />about fuel cells... they was adopted for space mission 45 years ago and used in spaceships from Gemini 5 in 1965 because they was reliable and their energy-density was LIGHT YEARS (as "big quantity", not as time or distance) from accumulators<br /><br />to-day, the difference of energy-density with rechargeable batteries remain high: about 1000 Wh/kg of fuel cells compared with 150 Wh/kg of Li-Ion batteries<br /><br />but that difference appears so high only because fuel cells can't be re-fueled in orbit while the (lower-energy-density) Li-Ion can be recharged hundreds times!<br /><br />a Shuttle with accumulators (recharged with a solar panel) may remain in orbit months while the fuel cells-powered Shuttle will die after 15 days (and risks to do bath in the ocean!)<br /><br />and, don't forget the problem of cryogenic tanks for fuel cells' Hydrogen-Oxygen!<br /><br />of course, NASA alredy know and study the problem developing some thin film Li-Ion rechargeable batteries to use them in future missions<br /><br />

 

[scottb50]

What I mean is an accumulator can be more flexible. Instead of venting you reduce the pressure in the accumulator, reducing the pressure in the propellant. In a tank the pressure increases until the structure fails, if you can increase the size of the container the pressure can be better controlled. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>